Cause of action (77,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Cause of action
Total judgments found: 315
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
Judgment 5178
141st Session, 2026
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the installation of speed lanes and video cameras pending a proper consultation process.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; consultation;
Consideration 5
Extract:
“The Tribunal’s case law clearly establishes that a complainant must have a cause of action in order for a complaint to be receivable (see, for example, Judgment 4881, consideration 3, and the case law cited therein). Moreover, for there to be a cause of action rendering a complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury (see, for example, Judgments 5036, consideration 4, and 3168, consideration 9).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 4881, 5036
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Consideration 3
Extract:
“Insofar as the complainant prosecutes a case that there had been no consultation with any representative body, he cannot do so because, at material times, he was neither an elected staff representative nor a member of any statutory consultation body. He thus had no cause of action in this specific respect (see Judgment 4797, consideration 5, and, a contrario, Judgments 4551, consideration 4, 3671, consideration 3, and 3546, consideration 6).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3546, 3671, 4551, 4797
Keywords:
cause of action; consultation;
Judgment 5139
141st Session, 2026
International Criminal Police Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to reappoint rather than reinstate him when he was re-employed by Interpol following a break of several months.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; reinstatement;
Consideration 3
Extract:
Article II of the Statute of the Tribunal provides, in paragraphs 1 and 5, that the Tribunal shall be competent to hear complaints alleging non-observance, in substance or in form, of the terms of an official’s appointment and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations of the organization that employs her or him. As the Tribunal has consistently held, it may be inferred from these provisions that, for a complaint to be receivable, among other requirements, the staff member must have a cause of action (see, for example, Judgments 4337, consideration 6, 4296, consideration 6, 4145, consideration 5, or 3426, consideration 16). A cause of action may be recognized only if the decision challenged by that official adversely affects her or him (see, in particular, Judgments 4322, considerations 8 and 9, 3198, consideration 13, 2952, consideration 3, and 1852, considerations 2 and 3). If the complainant does not allege the violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint (see, for example, Judgment 4317, consideration 3).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1852, 2952, 3198, 3426, 4145, 4296, 4317, 4322, 4337
Keywords:
cause of action; competence of tribunal;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Although the complainant asserts that being reappointed rather than reinstated was unfavorable to him, he has failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision adversely affected any of his rights. He has identified no provision of the Staff Regulations conferring an entitlement to reinstatement in his circumstances, nor has he shown that reappointment infringed his rights or legitimate interests or resulted in any loss of benefits. The complaint is therefore irreceivable for lack of a cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; decision;
Judgment 5129
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5128
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5127
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Judgment 5126
141st Session, 2026
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to replace his annual internal tax certificate with a statement indicating the amount of subsistence allowance that he received during the fiscal year 2019.
Consideration 10
Extract:
“The complainant, at the time he filed his complaint, did not have a cause of action and, accordingly, his complaint is irreceivable and should be dismissed.”
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint; tax;
Consideration 8
Extract:
“[I]t is necessary to evaluate whether, at [the date when the complaint was filed], the complainant had a cause of action (see Judgments 5046, consideration 4, and 4846, consideration 10).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4846, 5046
Keywords:
cause of action;
Consideration 9
Extract:
“[T]he action taken by [the defenfant] to replace the attestation with a tax certificate by the time the complaint was filed meant that the specific grievance of the complainant had been satisfied. He argues that there remains a live controversy about the abandonment of the mechanism of providing a tax certificate and cites Judgments 3740, consideration 11, and 2632, consideration 10. However, both of those cases concerned situations where a decision was made which did not immediately cause injury but was liable to do so in the future. This concept of “liable to cause injury” involves a measure of likelihood about the occurrence of the injury and certainly not just a remote possibility (see Judgments 5046, consideration 8, and 5040, consideration 8).”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2632, 3740, 5040, 5046
Keywords:
cause of action; claim moot;
Judgment 5123
141st Session, 2026
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 4
Extract:
«Selon la jurisprudence du Tribunal, il suffit, pour que l’intérêt à agir d’un requérant soit reconnu, qu’il soit établi que la mesure administrative contestée lui ait causé un quelconque préjudice, financier ou autre, ou qu’elle soit susceptible de lui causer un tel préjudice (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4722, au considérant 5, 4296, au considérant 6, 4007, au considérant 4, ou 3740, au considérant 11). »
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3740, 4007, 4296, 4722
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 5120
141st Session, 2026
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of her request for disclosure of several documents which, according to her, establish the exact circumstances of her husband’s death.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; complaint dismissed; disclosure of evidence;
Judgment 5088
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting the allegation that the former President of the Office made defamatory statements against staff representatives.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; defamation; staff representative;
Judgment 5084
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the EPO’s failure to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations concerning his harassment complaint.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; harassment; ombudsman; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Consideration 6
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal notes that, pursuant to Article 12(1)(b) of Circular No. 286, the President has a clear discretionary power to decide whether to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Secondly, the Tribunal’s case law, more generally, establishes that the alleged victim of harassment is not entitled to have a disciplinary sanction applied to the alleged author. The Tribunal recalls that disciplinary relations between an organization and a staff member do not directly concern other members of staff or affect their position in law. Consequently, a decision regarding a disciplinary inquiry or a disciplinary measure relating to one staff member ordinarily will not adversely affect other staff. Thus, a staff member ordinarily has no cause of action to challenge a disciplinary sanction or a refusal to impose one on another staff member […]. […] The Circular and the Tribunal’s case law more generally do not provide staff with any right to request disciplinary proceedings against another member of staff. In this respect, the complainant’s claims based on the EPO’s failure to impose disciplinary measures against Mr L. are, at the very least, unfounded, if not irreceivable for lack of cause of action.
Keywords:
cause of action; disciplinary measure; harassment; request to subject someone to disciplinary proceedings;
Judgment 5080
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the publication of two Communiqués raising concerns about the functioning of the Appeals Committee, of which he was a member.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; defamation;
Judgment 5076
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the method for making payments into the healthcare insurance fund.
Consideration 3
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal will address the receivability issues raised by the EPO, alleging that the complainant challenged a general decision that did not directly affect him and was not yet in force at the time the internal appeal was lodged.
According to the Tribunal’s case law, complainants can impugn general decisions only if they directly affect them and cannot impugn a general decision unless and until it is applied to them in a prejudicial manner. However, they are not prevented from challenging the lawfulness of a general decision when impugning the implementing decision that generated their cause of action. Moreover, a general decision can be challenged immediately when it does not require an implementing decision and it immediately and adversely affects individual rights (see, for example, Judgments 4898, consideration 2, and 4563, consideration 7).
In the present case, the complainant lodged an internal appeal against Circular No. 336, Section 2, on 26 January 2012, when that Section of the Circular was not yet in force in relevant respects. Indeed, Section 2 of the said Circular described the general method to be applied from 2014 onwards. Moreover, the complainant has not demonstrated that his situation fell within the scope of Section 2 of the Circular, which concerns staff whose spouses are in gainful employment, but without their own medical insurance. There is no evidence in the record that the complainant was paying insurance contributions for a spouse at the time when he lodged his internal appeal (see Judgment 4899, consideration 5). Thus, the complainant has not established that Circular No. 336 was directly and immediately applicable to him, to his detriment. In conclusion, the complaint is irreceivable in its entirety.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4563, 4898, 4899
Keywords:
cause of action; general decision;
Judgment 5060
140th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants, acting in their capacity as staff representatives at the material time, challenge the decision to appoint Mr L. to the post of Special Advisor.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The case law […] makes it plain that in a case in which a complainant brings a complaint in a representative capacity, the Tribunal of its own motion may address, as a preliminary issue, whether that complainant can do so merely in such a capacity, and, by extension, whether she or he has standing to render the complaint receivable. Notably, in consideration 8 of Judgment 4322, the Tribunal stated that if a complainant does not allege a violation of rights which the Tribunal is called upon to protect under the terms of its Statute, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the complaint. The complainant would have no cause of action, which is a necessary precondition for the Tribunal’s competence to entertain a complaint under the provisions of its own Statute. The Tribunal further noted that this case law connects this issue to the issue of receivability.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4322
Keywords:
cause of action; cause of action of staff representative; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
appointment; cause of action; cause of action of staff representative; complaint dismissed; locus standi; receivability of the complaint; staff representative;
Judgment 5046
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11) […] Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Consideration 4
Extract:
Plainly there was an important factual issue between the complainant and IAEA, namely whether he had ever held an Article 50 card and when. Of some significance is that in his brief (and he filed no rejoinder) he does not expressly challenge the conclusion of the Director General and his reasoning in the above passage, nor does he furnish any evidence that he ever held an Article 50 card. Whether he did or did not obtain an Article 50 card was peculiarly within his knowledge (see, for example, Judgment 4308, consideration 17). He could have been expected to provide evidence that he did. An inference can be readily drawn, in the circumstances, that he had not obtained one by the time he commenced these proceedings which is when a cause of action must exist (see Judgment 4846, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4308, 4846
Keywords:
cause of action;
Judgment 5040
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11) […] Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Consideration 8
Extract:
[The] concept of 'liable to cause injury' involves a measure of likelihood about the occurrence of the injury and certainly not a remote possibility.
Keywords:
cause of action; injury;
Judgment 5036
140th Session, 2025
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the communication, addressed by the IAEA to all of its staff members of British nationality, informing them that officials holding a residence permit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would be considered as having obtained permanent residence status in the country of their duty station (Austria), which would affect their home leave and repatriation grant entitlements as well as the privileges and immunities granted to them.
Consideration 4
Extract:
The first question is whether this email, and these statements [...], constitute an administrative decision for the purposes of partly determining whether this complaint is receivable. As explained in, for example, Judgment 3168, consideration 9, for there to be a cause of action rendering the complaint receivable, the complainant must demonstrate that the contested administrative decision caused injury to the complainant’s health, finances or otherwise or that it is liable to cause injury. The injury need not be immediate and liability to cause injury is sufficient (see, for example, Judgment 3740, consideration 11). This aspect of the principle applies in this case. Moreover, a communication clarifying the basis of an entitlement can embody a decision as to entitlements (see Judgment 3861, consideration 5). In the present case the position taken by the IAEA was quite specific. The complainant, as viewed by the IAEA as a permanent resident (based on what the Austrian authorities considered constituted permanent residence status), would receive no repatriation allowance nor home leave. This, in the Tribunal’s opinion, gives rise to a cause of action and the complaint is thus receivable.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3168, 3740, 3861
Keywords:
administrative decision; cause of action; injury; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4997
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the rejection of his internal appeal relating to a letter which he intended to send to the French representative on the Administrative Council of the EPO.
Considerations 2 and 5
Extract:
L’article II du Statut du Tribunal prévoit, en ses paragraphes 1 et 5, que le Tribunal connaît des requêtes invoquant l’inobservation, soit quant au fond, soit quant à la forme, des stipulations du contrat d’engagement des fonctionnaires ou des dispositions du statut du personnel de l’organisation dont ils relèvent. Ainsi que le Tribunal l’a maintes fois affirmé dans sa jurisprudence, il se déduit de ces prescriptions que, pour qu’une requête soit recevable, il est notamment requis, d’une part, que celle-ci soit dirigée contre une décision susceptible, par sa nature, d’être déférée au Tribunal et, d’autre part, que le fonctionnaire concerné justifie d’un intérêt à agir (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4337, au considérant 6, 4296, au considérant 6, 4145, au considérant 5, ou 3426, au considérant 16).
S’agissant de la première de ces conditions, il résulte de la jurisprudence qu’un acte émanant d’une organisation internationale ne constitue une décision susceptible de recours que s’il déploie un effet juridique (voir, par exemple, les jugements 4038, au considérant 3, 3428, au considérant 13, 2364, au considérant 4, ou 1674, au considérant 6 a)).
S’agissant de la seconde condition, la jurisprudence a précisé, en se référant aux dispositions de l’article II précité du Statut du Tribunal, qu’un intérêt à agir ne peut être reconnu à un fonctionnaire que si ses prétentions reposent sur l’invocation des droits ou obligations résultant des stipulations de son contrat d’engagement ou des dispositions du statut du personnel (voir notamment les jugements 4337, au considérant 6, 4145, au considérant 5, 4048, au considérant 5, et 3426, au considérant 16).
[…]
[L]e requérant ne justifie nullement d’un intérêt à agir lui donnant qualité pour contester cette décision. Il ne tire en effet d’aucune stipulation de son contrat d’engagement, ni d’aucune disposition du Statut des fonctionnaires, le droit d’obtenir de l’OEB que celle-ci transmette un courrier de sa part au représentant d’un État membre auprès du Conseil d’administration et, a fortiori, à cette personne prise en sa qualité de haut fonctionnaire de cet État. Cette conclusion vaut d’ailleurs d’autant plus que, eu égard à la teneur du projet de lettre litigieux, qui exprimait, au nom d’un collectif de citoyens d’un État, une critique d’une réforme adoptée par l’Organisation auprès d’une autorité nationale de cet État et visait manifestement à faire pression sur cette dernière, le Tribunal estime que la démarche du requérant était, en l’espèce, contraire, à tout le moins, à l’obligation de réserve à laquelle sont soumis les fonctionnaires de l’Office en vertu notamment des articles 14, paragraphe 1, et 16, paragraphe 1, du Statut (voir, par exemple, pour un cas de figure analogue, le jugement 2114, au considérant 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1674, 2114, 2364, 3426, 3428, 4038, 4048, 4145, 4296, 4337
Keywords:
cause of action; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4993
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his request for an advance payment of legal costs.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; costs for internal appeal procedure;
Judgment 4992
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the change in the examination of the patent application procedure.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
cause of action; complaint dismissed; receivability of the complaint;
Judgment 4991
139th Session, 2025
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges Internal Instructions that modified the examination of patent law applications.
Consideration 4
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal held that decisions with respect to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not “adversely affect” staff members and, thus, cannot be the subject of an internal appeal. In short, such decisions are not appealable and do not create a cause of action (see Judgment 4417, considerations 7 and 8). In other judgments, the Tribunal held that, in principle, proposals and/or decisions relating to the law and/or procedures applicable to patent applications do not directly affect the relationship of staff with the organization, whether in terms of the work to be performed, the way in which it is to be performed, the method by which it is to be evaluated or the like, although decisions or proposals as to the implementations of changes to the law and/or procedures may well do so (see Judgments 4797, consideration 7, and 3053, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3053, 4417, 4797
Keywords:
cause of action; ratione materiae; receivability of the complaint;
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 | next >
|
